Holmes v. Gilliland
This text of 41 Barb. 568 (Holmes v. Gilliland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
The defense is purely technical. The publication is not, by the statute, a portion of the proceedings for the formation of a corporation. The publication must be made before the corporation commences business. It may be a corporation for all the purposes of bringing an action without publication. If the publication be omitted, the cor-, poration might be restrained or wound up; but it would not enable a debtor to escape payment.
General reputation is sufficient evidence of user, prima facie. General reputation that the plaintiffs were conducting business as a corporation, coupled with the fact that the note mentioned in the complaint is payable to the plaintiffs, was sufficient evidence of the existence of the corporation to prevent a dismissal of the complaint.
I think also it was competent for the legislature of Connecticut to declare what should be sufficient prima, facie evidence of the formation of a corporation. (2 Bosw. 166.)
The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event.
Clerk®, J. concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
41 Barb. 568, 1864 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-gilliland-nysupct-1864.